Taylor Joseph W, Long Marie, Ashley Elizabeth, Denning Alex, Gout Beatrice, Hansen Kayleigh, Huws Thomas, Jennings Leifa, Quinn Sinead, Sarkies Patrick, Wojtowicz Alex, Newton Philip M
College of Medicine, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP Wales, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 17;10(6):e0127848. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127848. eCollection 2015.
The media have a key role in communicating advances in medicine to the general public, yet the accuracy of medical journalism is an under-researched area. This project adapted an established monitoring instrument to analyse all identified news reports (n = 312) on a single medical research paper: a meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Cancer which showed a modest link between processed meat consumption and pancreatic cancer. Our most significant finding was that three sources (the journal press release, a story on the BBC News website and a story appearing on the 'NHS Choices' website) appeared to account for the content of over 85% of the news stories which covered the meta analysis, with many of them being verbatim or moderately edited copies and most not citing their source. The quality of these 3 primary sources varied from excellent (NHS Choices, 10 of 11 criteria addressed) to weak (journal press release, 5 of 11 criteria addressed), and this variance was reflected in the accuracy of stories derived from them. Some of the methods used in the original meta-analysis, and a proposed mechanistic explanation for the findings, were challenged in a subsequent commentary also published in the British Journal of Cancer, but this discourse was poorly reflected in the media coverage of the story.
媒体在向公众传播医学进展方面发挥着关键作用,然而医学新闻报道的准确性却是一个研究不足的领域。本项目采用一种既定的监测工具,对关于一篇医学研究论文的所有已识别新闻报道(n = 312)进行分析:这是一篇发表在《英国癌症杂志》上的荟萃分析,该分析表明加工肉类消费与胰腺癌之间存在适度关联。我们最显著的发现是,三个来源(期刊新闻稿、BBC新闻网站上的一篇报道以及“国民健康服务选择”网站上的一篇报道)似乎构成了涵盖该荟萃分析的新闻报道内容的85%以上,其中许多报道是逐字照搬或经过适度编辑的副本,而且大多数都未注明来源。这三个主要来源的质量参差不齐,从优秀(“国民健康服务选择”网站,满足11项标准中的10项)到薄弱(期刊新闻稿,满足11项标准中的5项),这种差异也反映在源自它们的报道的准确性上。原始荟萃分析中使用的一些方法以及对研究结果提出的一种机制性解释,在随后同样发表于《英国癌症杂志》的一篇评论中受到了质疑,但这一讨论在该报道的媒体 coverage中却很少体现。 (注:coverage原意为覆盖范围等,这里结合语境理解为报道情况,media coverage可理解为媒体报道情况,但直接翻译为媒体coverage不太准确,可根据实际情况调整表述使其更通顺,比如媒体报道等,但按照要求不添加解释,所以保留原词)